Tag Archives: Human Resources

I am extremely happy when I can recieve recommendations for office from characters in whom I have such entire confidence; as nothing chagrins me so much as when I have been led to an injudicious appointment … the other duties of administration are easy in comparison with this. the appointment to office, where one cannot see but with the eyes of others, is far the most difficult of my duties.To Ephraim Kirby, December 10, 1802

Patrick Lee’s ExplanationWise leaders need and appreciate sound input from others.
Kirby had recommended a trusted acquaintance for an opening on Connecticut’s Bankruptcy Commission. He cited the man’s background, credentials and qualifications. Jefferson trusted Kirby and was effusive in his appreciation for Kirby’s insight.

Personnel issues were always the most vexing for Jefferson, far more difficult than administrative ones. He had to rely on others’ advice for many appointments and had been burned when some recommendations turned out to be faulty. Kirby’s advice would protect him from that fate and serve the public interest well.

“Your presentation on Thomas Jefferson was outstanding and very realistic.”Utah Council of Land Surveyors

Mr. Jefferson will be outstanding for your audience! Invite him to speak. Call 573-657-2739

… I must supply now in writing, what I then could not express, the sense of my attachment to you & satisfaction with your services. they were faithful, & skilful, and your whole conduct so marked with good humour, industry, sobriety & economy as never to have given me one moment’s dissatisfaction: and indeed were I to be again in a situation to need services of the same kind, yours would be more acceptable to me than those of any person living. I have thought it my duty thus to declare what is just & true respecting you …To Etienne Lemaire, March 16, 1809

Patrick Lee’s ExplanationWise leaders value gifted employees and tell them so.
Lemaire was the manager of the President’s House during Jefferson’s administrations, overseeing the staff and meal preparations. Earlier in this letter, Jefferson apologized for saying only “Adieu” when he left Washington City. He explained that he was overcome at the prospect of returning to his family at Monticello and once again having a life of his own that “goodbye” was all he could manage for those who had served him so well.

Jefferson now corrected that oversight with flowing praise for Lemaire’s skilled and faithful service. He cited the specifics of Lemaire’s character and should the need arise, would hire him again above all others.

He closed with a request to know Lemaire’s new address that he might write him and invited his butler’s correspondence, as well.

“The Missouri Bar will undoubtedly invite Mr. Lee to future functions, and we recommend him highly.”Director of Law-Related Education, The Missouri Bar

If Mr. Jefferson can please lawyers, he can certainly please your members! Invite him to speak. Call 573-657-2739

Th: Jefferson presents his respects … & regrets that it is not consistent with the rule he lays down for his own conduct to communicate to them the papers asked for in their note of the 27th. applications to him for office, & information given him as to the character of applicants, he considers as confidential, to be used only for his own government … he suffers these papers to go to no office, but keeps them with the most private of his own in order that those who will assist him with information may be assured they do it with safety …To Joseph Stanton, March 1, 1806

Patrick Lee’s ExplanationPrincipled leaders apply the rules evenly and without exception.
Stanton, along with Benjamin Howland, asked the President for any information he had gathered on them in regard to their application for employment. Jefferson said no, citing his across-the-board policy. He regarded such information as confidential and kept it under his personal control. Only those with a need-to-know would ever see it.
Jefferson offered to oblige in other matters if it could be done “with propriety,” but he would not break this rule, which he applied in all cases. He closed by assuring Stanton and Howland of his respect.

“We could not have asked for a better keynote presenter to set the tone for our conference theme, ‘Prepared to Lead.'”Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties

.. it is true that this [skill] had not always been observed as the principle of appointment, but it was thought best to follow the best examples … it is indeed far the most painful part of my duty, under which nothing could support me but the consideration that I am but a machine erected by the constitution for the performance of certain acts according to laws of action laid down for me, one of which is that I must anatomise the living man as the Surgeon does his dead subject, view him also as a machine & employ him for what he is fit for, unblinded by the mist of friendship.To Benjamin Rush, June 13, 1805

Patrick Lee’s ExplanationWhen can a leader appoint a friend to a job?
Jefferson wrote to one old friend explaining his thinking in appointing another friend as Director of the Mint. The appointee was noted mathematician Robert Patterson. (Patterson was one of the scholars. who tutored Meriwether Lewis prior to his epic journey west. So was Dr. Rush. Both did so at Jefferson’s request.)

Jefferson cited the appointments of two men, Isaac Newton in England and David Rittenhouse in America, as examples of skilled mathematicians appointed to positions that demanded such skills. Both men were well-received by their countrymen. Patterson would be similarly approved.

Jefferson hated the personnel aspect of his job and sought cover by comparing himself to a medical examiner. As that one was charged with dissecting dead bodies, Jefferson was required to dissect live ones, examining what he found within, looking for fitness for office. The Constitution turned him into nothing more than “a machine.” If he found a man fit, as he did Patterson, his friendship with the man was no longer a factor.

… your position has already probably proved to you that while the real business of conducting the affairs of our constituents is plain & easy, that of deciding by whom they shall be conducted is most painful & perplexing. it is the case of one loaf and ten men wanting bread: and we have not the gift of multiplying them.To Joseph Bloomfield, December 5, 1801

Patrick Lee’s Explanation All leaders are vexed by personnel issues.
Bloomfield, the new Republican governor of New Jersey, asked a favor of the President, the subject of the next post. Jefferson began his reply affirming his high regard for anything Bloomfield would send his way. Then he had a little “shop talk” with his fellow office-holder.

Bloomfield’s letter was about someone seeking a government job. Jefferson commiserated with his fellow office-holder with two observations they both knew:
1. WHAT should be done to aid their constituents was “plain & easy.”
2. Choosing WHO should do that work was “most painful & perplexing.”

Jefferson likened it to having 10 hungry men and only enough food for one. Drawing on a Biblical parallel, he admitted he lacked the miraculous means to turn one person’s food into a feast for 10.

Jefferson always found that deciding the personnel issues of governing was far more stressing than the problems to be solved.

“I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your inspirational presentation …”Conference Chair, Missouri Council for Exceptional Children

Had you hundreds to nominate, instead of one, be assured they would not compose for you a bed of roses. You would find yourself in most cases with one loaf and ten wanting bread. Nine must be disappointed, perhaps become secret, if not open enemies. The transaction of the great interests of our country costs us little trouble or difficulty. There the line is plain to men of some experience. But the task of appointment is a heavy one indeed. He on whom it falls may envy the lot of a Sisyphus or Ixion. Their agonies were of the body: this of the mind. Yet, like the office of hangman it must be executed by some one. It has been assigned to me and made my duty. I make up my mind to it therefore, & abandon all regard to consequences. Accept my salutations & assurances of respect.To Larkin Smith, November 26, 1804

Patrick Lee’s ExplanationPersonnel decisions vex all leaders!
Larkin, a political supporter in Virginia, had twice written the President, asking for a job and received no reply. In a third letter, he expressed dismay at the lack of a response. Larkin thought his years of service to the nation merited at least an answer, if not a job.

In an earlier part of this letter, Jefferson explained Larkin’s failure to receive the appointment he sought was an answer. The President went on to explain one of the most difficult parts of his job was disappointing people who sought employment.
Great issues facing the country posed little difficulty, because wise, experienced men knew what to do. Personnel issues were another matter entirely. Only one person could be appointed per job, and the many not chosen would be disappointed. The losers, who might have been allies, could become private foes, maybe even public ones.

In such matters, Jefferson compared himself to the hangman. As someone had to do that unpleasant job, he had to do his, each time rewarding one and disappointing many. It came with the territory of being a leader. He accepted the responsibility and refused to worry about the consequences.

“ … please accept this letter of thanks and appreciation for your outstanding presentation … “University of Missouri College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources